Labels are usually no good. I think I’m agnostic, but I use the term atheist so that people will understand. I think there are limits to our knowledge and within those limits there is no evidence for any of the thousands of gods that have been worshipped, but as to the unknown, we just don’t know. I think that’s agnosticism. But to be clear that I absolutely don’t believe in any of the currently worshipped gods, I use the term atheist. Indeed I’m with Christopher Hitchens and am anti-religious and would wish that it be ridiculed out of existence because it's mostly a racket.
The same trouble happens with political labels. The one that seems to fit me best is left-libertarian. I believe that we have an ethical duty to redistribute wealth in a capitalist society, preferably in cash and health care, but I also think the government should be stripped way down and put back into the box the framers of the Constitution envisioned.
A few examples of my stances. I mention health care. I am for a single payer that would drive private health insurers out of business. This is an ethical imperative as well as an economic one. The system should be funded to cover anything a licensed doctor asks for with minimal oversight to prevent blatant fraud. Cutting the military budget in half could help pay for it, and we would still be quite safe from invasion.
The Internal Revenue Code is a multi-volume impenetrable cluster fuck of legislation piled upon legislation. To actually know what a particular provision is requires following multiple cross references to different parts of the code. I’ve taken every tax course required to be a CPA and every tax course offered in law school, and I would never do my own taxes. The government’s administration of the IRC, and the taxpayers’ compliance with it represents an enormous waste of talent and effort. I envision a tax code half the size of the Waycross, GA phone book, written in plain English. Income should be defined with all sources of income, salary, capital gains, gifts, and estates being treated equally. There should be a few basic deductions. And then a rate table. The code itself should be stable and hard to change except for the rate table. The rates would change according to need, and could easily be debated in public because most people can understand basic rates. The table should be progressive, with the poorest people actually receiving cash. (the negative income tax). With a properly set negative income tax of cash and “free” health care, most of the ethical duty to care for the poor would be met.
The criminal law needs to be reduced to about 10% of its current size and complexity. Federal criminal law should only concern things that are Federal in nature and not overlap existing state laws. All consensual crimes (gambling, prostitution, drugs, etc) should be struck down and people serving sentences for those crimes (that didn’t involve violence) released. White collar crime should be punished as severely as street level theft. In Wisconsin, the criminal code was revamped into a much simpler version. It was easy to understand and short. Most people understand what should be illegal, and the list isn’t all that complex or long. Indeed in some instances it has been reduced to a list of ten things.
Many of the functions of the government can be handled by private contractors, as long as the bidding and contracting is done in public view. Thus, the Federal government should be more like a bank, taking in tax money, and paying contractors to do the necessary things that aren’t already done adequately in the private sector.
All of that said, I usually vote Democrat in our two-party system. I don't know if that harms or helps my goals, but they at least mostly seem to have their priorities better aligned. Society can't be run purely on goals of economic efficiency. There is an important ethical component as well. Maybe I should call myself an ethical libertarian. Or does that just make me a moderate?
No comments:
Post a Comment